Nepal’s Supreme Court has begun preliminary hearings on more than a dozen writ petitions challenging the formation of the interim government led by Sushila Karki and her subsequent decision to dissolve the House of Representatives (HoR) before the end of its term.
The Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court will hear a total of 16 writ petitions. Chief Justice Prakash Man Singh Raut has already given his consent to forward all cases to the bench. The petitioners have argued that Karki’s appointment as interim prime minister is unconstitutional, as Nepal’s 2015 Constitution does not allow non-members of Parliament to assume the prime ministerial position.
Furthermore, while appointing her as prime minister, no specific constitutional article was cited. The Office of the President has argued that Karki was appointed under Article 61 of the Constitution, which relates to the president’s duty to safeguard the Constitution. However, in 2015, all provisions related to the formation of government were clearly outlined under Article 76. Karki was appointed interim head following the GenZ protests on Sept 12.
Another argument raised by the petitioners concerns Article 132(2) of the Constitution. Lawyers Bipana Sharma and Ayush Badal contend that a former chief justice cannot hold any government office except within the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). Article 132(2) states: “No person who has once held the office of Chief Justice or a Judge of the Supreme Court shall be eligible for appointment to any government office, except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.”
This means that, except for roles in the NHRC, former chief justices and Supreme Court judges cannot assume any other government positions. However, those in power argue that the current government emerged from the GenZ revolution, and therefore, its constitutionality and legality should not be judged through the lens of “normal times.”
Nepal had faced a similar situation in 2013, when then–Chief Justice Khil Raj Regmi led an interim government. His appointment was also challenged in the Supreme Court, but the court delayed its hearing until after Regmi stepped down upon completing the elections. Later, Supreme Court judges were divided over the verdict. Interestingly, current Prime Minister Karki, who at the time was serving as a senior justice, had expressed that Regmi’s appointment went against the spirit of the interim constitution. Now, legal observers are keen to see how Karki will defend her own appointment.
Karki faces three major constitutional challenges: A non-parliamentarian assuming the office of prime minister; the lack of any cited constitutional article in her appointment by President Ramchandra Paudel; and the restriction under Article 132(2), which bars former justices from holding government office.
Similarly, several writs have been filed against the dissolution of the House of Representatives. Shortly after taking office, Karki recommended to President Poudel that Parliament be dissolved. Reports suggest that Karki believed she could only serve as prime minister after Parliament’s dissolution. Media sources also claim she faced pressure from Kathmandu Mayor Balendra Shah to dissolve Parliament immediately. Legal experts, however, argue that Karki’s appointment was justified under the “doctrine of necessity.”
Still, constitutional experts point out that, under Article 76(7), the prime minister can recommend dissolution of Parliament only after all attempts to form a new government have failed. On this very basis, the Supreme Court in 2020 and 2021 had reinstated the Parliament dissolved by then Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, ruling that the House could still produce a new government. The current House of Representatives, elected in 2022, is set to complete its term in 2027.
As the Supreme Court prepares to begin hearings on the 16 petitions, the prospects of the March 5 elections look increasingly uncertain. Dialogue between the government and political parties has begun, but it has not helped rebuild trust. Political leaders continue to raise concerns about security, saying they still fear openly holding meetings and rallies. Nepal Police has yet to recover the 1,200 weapons looted during the Sept 9 protests, and more than 4,000 escaped inmates remain at large and reportedly involved in criminal activities.
Party leaders claim they are still receiving threats. In this context, if elections do not take place on March 5, the interim government may lose its legitimacy, creating a new political vacuum. Senior leaders of the Nepali Congress and CPN-UML argue that the only way to preserve the current Constitution is for the Supreme Court to reinstate Parliament.
They contend that restoring Parliament would provide a legitimate institution to address the demands of the GenZ protesters, including ending corruption, ensuring systemic reform, and curbing nepotism. NC and UML leaders also say that, as their party offices have been destroyed and many leaders have lost their homes, the current environment is not conducive to holding elections.
Devraj Ghimire, Speaker of the dissolved House of Representatives, is also strongly advocating for Parliament’s restoration. He is currently consulting with legal experts to create a constitutional and political pathway for the reinstatement of the House.
